I just don’t get the whole “letting gays marry will destroy the institution of marriage” thing. Why? How? I don’t see the logic. Will heterosexual couples take their marriages less seriously because homosexual couples can marry as well? Why?

Some people say if you let gays marry you’ve removed obstacles to every other kind of marriage (the “slippery slope” argument). But there are very sound arguments against allowing multiple wives, multiple husbands, group marriages, people marrying pets, and so on. I cannot think of any sound reason for not permitting two adults to make a legal commitment to one another.

re: #278 iceweasel

It is different, in the sense that what’s now acceptable in “the public square” is very different. People have always gotten their freak on, in their own freaky ways. And always will.

And you’re completely right to point out that “public morality” in the US and UK often has this kind of Victorian/Puritan tinge to it. It’s all a little like shutting the barn door after the horse fled. So to speak.

But there’s now this weird combination of public dismay and Puritanism, while the realities of people’s lives are very different— and our consumer culture, media culture, also blasts a message that acts as if all sex all the time is a good thing. We have politicans pontificating that letting gays marry will destroy the institution of marriage— while they’re out there doing enough on their own to destroy their own, hetero marriages.

It’s a weird kind of schizophrenia. I’m all for letting people do whatever they want, but I can’t help being bothered by some of the cultural and political messages the US publicly sends about sex.